Senator Brian Burston (Opinion 31/1) argued nuclear power was a panacea to the current energy policy crisis that would make energy affordable for all.

But even if we could build a nuclear power industry from close to scratch, and even if we could persuade a community to accept a station in their neighbourhood, it would actually increase electricity prices.

Nuclear power is among the most expensive forms of electricity generation.

The UK government is paying the owners of the Hinkley Nuclear Power Station about $200 per megawatt hour (MWh) for nuclear power, indexed for inflation for the next 35 years. By contrast the current NSW wholesale electricity price is about $80/MWh. When you compare cost of alternatives, nuclear loses. The levelised cost of energy is the best way to compare technologies. It accounts for the fact that solar produces electricity about 30 per cent of the time, wind 40 per cent and coal 85 per cent.

The levelised cost of energy of a solar farm is $60MWh and wind is $50/MWh. The cost of nuclear in nations with established industries is between $160/MWh and $270/MWh. To make solar and wind completely reliable, you need to firm it up with back-up sources, usually a combination of gas plants, pumped hydro storage and batteries.

Power companies and government estimates put this cost at $15/MWh.

Wind power made completely reliable will cost Australians about $75/MWh. That is less than the current cost of producing electricity and a third of the cost of nuclear.

The Australian Energy Market Operator has found that the cheapest new energy for Australia is renewable energy backed up by pumped hydro storage and gas.

As the cost of generating electricity makes up 35 per cent of a consumer’s bill, by arguing for electricity produced at three times the cost, Senator Burston is arguing for a consumer’s electricity bill to be 70 per cent higher. Labor’s policy of supporting a national energy guarantee has been overwhelmingly supported by the energy industry, unions and environment groups. It will deliver 50 per cent renewable energy in a planned way that ensures electricity is as cheap as possible and reliable.

Independent modelling predicts that the 50 per cent renewable plan will lead to wholesale energy prices being 25 per cent lower and the creation of 71,000 jobs from construction through to maintenance.

Hottest month ever shows temperatures rising faster than predicted, say climate experts Australia sweltered through the hottest month in its history in January, spurring mass deaths of fish, fire warnings and concerns among climate scientists that extreme heat is hitting faster and harder than anticipated.

For the first time since records began, the country’s mean temperature in January exceeded 30C (86F), according to the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), which said daily extremes – in some places just short of 50C – were unprecedented.

“There’s been so many records it’s really hard to count,” said Andrew Watkins, a senior climatologist at BoM, after January registered Australia’s warmest month for mean, maximum and minimum temperatures.

This followed the country’s warmest December on record, with heatwaves in every Australian state and territory. With colour-coded heat maps of the country resembling blazing red furnaces for much of the month, the authorities have recently issued a special report on the extraordinary heat.

A persistent high-pressure system in the Tasman Sea that blocked cold fronts and cooler air from reaching the country’s south, and a delayed monsoon in the north, contributed to the heatwave.

Climate change is the long-term driver. “The warming trend which has seen Australian temperatures increase by more than 1C in the last 100 years also contributed to the unusually warm conditions,” Watkins said.

The bureau’s monthly report said the heatwaves were unprecedented in their scale and duration. The highest temperatures of the month were recorded in Augusta on the south-west coast, where thermometers registered 49.5C , but the most relentless heat was in Birdsville, Queensland, which endured 10 consecutive days above 45C.

Tasmania, where emergency services have been battling bushfiresthroughout the past month, had its driest ever January. Watkins said Borrona Downs in north-west New South Wales broke the record for hottest minimum temperature, registering one night at 36.6C. This has a major impact on ecosystems that have not been able to cool down during the night as is normally the case.

This was compounded by drought. Large parts of Australia received only 20% of their normal rainfall, particularly throughout the south-east in Victoria and parts of NSW and South Australia.

Menindee in far-west NSW had four days in a row of temperatures above 47C. This was the site of December and January’s mass fish kills on the Darling River. Hundreds of thousands of native fish, including Murray cod, golden perch and bony bream, died around the Menindee weir. The authorities blamed “thermal stratification” as sudden shifts in temperature – first hot, then cold – caused algae blooms and choked the water of oxygen.

After the most recent fish die-off on 27 January, the Labor leader, Bill Shorten, said the Murray-Darling was “facing the makings of an ecological disaster”. He said: “This is not standard, this is not normal. This is a disaster.”

In parts of western Queensland and western NSW, there have been long strings of more than 40 days of temperatures above 40C.

Cloncurry had 43 days in a row that exceeded 40C. Birdsville had 16 days in January of temperatures higher than 45C including 10 days in a row.

NSW, the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and the Northern Territory all had their warmest January on record.

The meteorological agency has warned that temperatures are set to rise further in the years ahead as a result of climate change. In its report last month, it said warming was contributing to a long-term increase in the frequency of extreme heat, fire weather and drought.

“Australia is already experiencing climate change now and there are impacts being experienced or felt across many communities and across many sectors,” said Helen Cleugh, the director of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which collaborated on the report.

The study, which is updated every two years, found that Australia’s fire seasons have lengthened – in places by months – and become more severe. From April to October, there has been a broad shift to more arid conditions in south-eastern and south-western Australia. Sea levels have already risen by 20cm and ocean temperatures are up by 1C, which is causing acidification – 10 times faster than at any time in 300m years – which has damaged the corals of the Great Barrier Reef.

This is outrageous! This Government’s wilful abandonment of the environment will send species extinct and further degrade struggling eco-systems.

The hypocrisy of the Liberals knows no bounds. In opposition, they criticised Labor’s annual budget cuts to the environment, but as soon as they were elected they did the same, with 100 jobs axed last year and more to come. And now they’re going one step further!

The clear message is that if the environment doesn’t make money for someone, it’s not worth protecting. Heaven help our endangered wildlife. If creatures like the Glossy Black Cockatoo or Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby don’t start earning their keep, the Government has made it clear that they are a lower priority. This is not a good time to be a Hooded Plover or an Orange-bellied Parrot in South Australia.

The Marshall Liberal Government’s honeymoon period is now well and truly over. The Government has shown its true anti-environment colours. Any notion that they might care about species, eco-systems, sustainability and the climate, has all but disappeared. Now, they have left us in no doubt that, in their eyes, only those parts of the environment that make money deserve protection.

The Greens are calling on the Liberals to stop the cuts and retain a Department that is focussed on protecting our environment and waterways. They need to stand up for South Australia’s environment and River Murray. The Government should heed the warning of the Royal Commissioner into the management of the River Murray that kow-towing to economic interests upstream only results in further degradation of the environment.

Declaring war on the environment pits this government against everyone who cares about our natural heritage. We must protect the environment for its own sake as well as for future generations.

Our environment and all the species that depend upon it for their survival, deserve better. South Australians deserve better!

Let the Marshall Liberal Government know that you expect the Environment Minister to stand up for South Australia’s environment at all times – not just when there is an economic advantage. Sign our petition and share your concern with family and friends.

Australian independent media on the rise, Michael West , Feb 1, 2019The coming of the Internet was the media world’s first real game-changer. Profits enjoyed from the 1970s to 2000s were gone and anyone could start an online news site for little cost. Independent digital media sites not only flourished but did something novel: they engaged with their readers — especially via social media. Today, these sites attract three to four times more visitors via social media than mainstream media. Kim Wingerei reports.

MUCH HAS been said about the power that Rupert Murdoch wields in our concentrated media landscape. But it is a landscape that continues to change and although Murdoch’s News Corp Australia remains a dominant force together with the remnants of Fairfax, his influence is on the wane. Local independent media – somewhat inadvertently supported by the global social media behemoths – is where not just growth but influence is increasingly found……….

Newspapers once ruled the world of news and was the focal point for informed public debate. Radio came along and got a place at the same table, albeit never as glamorous and rewarding for its proprietors. TV had much more of an impact as a provider of entertainment — immersing itself into the living rooms of the world.

Both radio and TV heralded the end of the newspaper, predictions that never quite came through. People still liked to read the paper and the daily broadsheet carried a gravitas that radio and TV could never match — except maybe for Walter Cronkite.

The Internet changed everything. Not straight away and not in the ways originally foreseen, but it removed forever the traditional gatekeepers of information. Some would say replacing them by Google, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and the plethora of lesser social media and search engine platforms.

The Internet was the catalyst for change and social media was the real game changer for traditional media companies.

When all we had was broadcast media (papers, magazines, radio and TV) the only alternative was people conversing and arguing — around the fireplace and the dinner table, at the pub, community halls or on a soapbox in the public square. Social media has taken those conversations beyond its physical limitations to the world square — for better or for worse.

But unlike the established trust of local communities, unregulated and borderless communication is a place of fear and distrust. Social media – despite its proliferation – has a Net Trust Score (NTS) of minus 42 per cent in the recent Roy Morgan Media Net Trust Survey (the number of respondents that trust less than those that don’t). Television (-16 per cent) and Newspapers (-13 per cent) fare much better but still significantly less than the Internet (-7 per cent), Magazines (-4 per cent) and Radio (-2 per cent).

The only major media brands in Australia with a positive NTS score are the ABC, SBS and (by a whisker) Fairfax — a brand that won’t be around for the next survey………..

as the recent Senate hearing into the ABC showed, politicians are also not shying away from trying to influence the national broadcaster in much the same way as media proprietors do — through appointments, intimidation, hiring and firing. The day the ABC is not feared by the government is the day the ABC stops doing its job.

Albeit somewhat cowed at the moment, the ABC remains a stalwart of independent media. And with its high trust rating, it would also benefit from being much more active on social media than it is.

Despite the low trust in social media, it is an important driver of traffic for the fast growing independent media sector. There is a reason some senators went out of their way to attack the #auspol Twitter community recently — and it was not to protect democracy as it pretended.

“Everyone” is on social media and according to a recent Roy Morgan poll (May 2018) and 78 per cent of Australians aged 14+ also access online news-sites.

News.com.au is the largest (5.8 million monthly readers), followed closely by The Sydney Morning Herald (5.3) and the ABC (5.0). Of the top 20 news-sites in Australia, News Corp’s sites represent 31.9 per cent and Nine/Fairfax 28.7 per cent. Counting Kerry Stokes’ modest 4.5 per cent (Yahoo!7 and The West Australian), it leaves the independents with just under 35 per cent of the top 20.

After the ABC, the Daily Mail comes in at 3.9 million readers of other outlet’s stories; and of the other independents, The Guardian (3.0) are just ahead of the BBC (2.9) – a surprising inclusion on the list – I am guessing driven by Anglo-Saxon baby-boomers and their parents. The online reading habits of Gen Z ensures that Buzzfeed (2.2) and Huffington Post (1.2) are included in the top 20.

Second bottom of the top 20 is The New Daily just shy of one million readers and, although not included in the Roy Morgan surveys (yet), there is also a plethora of online sites that provide news coverage and extensive political and current affairs commentary and analysis.

These sites are not only all independent but according to the online visitor statistics as provided by SimilarWeb (an online web measurement service) they are also growing at a rapid rate, whereas “traditional” media growth online is mostly offset by the steady decline in print readership.

And while Murdoch may lament the increasing dominance that Google, Facebook and Twitter have over the worlds’ virtual eyeballs, search and social media is an important source of web traffic and the latter, in particular, for the independent media which relies on social media for much of its visitor numbers.

Based on SimilarWeb’s data, News.com.au gets 5.5 per cent of its visitor traffic from social media, in contrast to The Guardian’s 12.2 per cent and Independent Australia’s almost 20 per cent. Overall, independent media gets three to four times more of its visitors referred by social media (mainly Facebook, Twitter and Reddit) than the mainstream news media sites do.

This is significant as social media is also the platform where the conversations are happening — as exemplified by the #auspol hashtag on Twitter. Contrary to the belief by some ill-informed politicians, these are vibrant conversations between engaged people, the bots are few and far between and easily spotted (when you know how, which Senator Fierravanti-Wells’ staff clearly did not).

In reality, if we look beyond the entertainment dominated mainstream media, the Australian media landscape is increasingly diverse. Murdoch and Nine Entertainment may well have the numbers of overall visitors for now but for debate and influencing voters, there are many more options.

As an example, Murdoch’s flagship purveyor of politicised opinion – The Australian – has close to a million fewer readers online than The Guardian and less than half of the ABC. Based on online visitor stats, the top five politically-focused independent media outlets combined (of those NOT in the top 20) has about the same readership as The Australian online.

The ABC and The Guardian are the leaders of a diverse pack of fast growing online media sites that challenge the status quo — including this publication. They play an increasingly important role in keeping our politicians honest. Politicians for their part need to stand up to the vested interest of the media proprietors or suffer the consequences.

It is all well and good to lament the power of the media. Strong politicians must withstand it through transparency and focus on policies instead of politics and not succumb to their fear of missing out.

A surprising new picture of ocean circulation could have major consequences for climate science, Some experts say the Atlantic Ocean circulation is already slowing down — but we’re just beginning to learn how it really works, WP By Chris Mooney, January 31 2019

It may be the biggest wild card in the climate system. Scientists have long feared that the so-called “overturning” circulation in the Atlantic Ocean could slow down or even halt due to climate change — a change that would have enormous planetary consequences.

But at the same time, researchers have a limited understanding of how the circulation actually works, since taking measurements of its vast and remote currents is exceedingly difficult. And now, a major new research endeavor aimed at doing just that has suggested a dramatic revision of our understanding of the circulation itself.

A new 21-month series of observations in the frigid waters off Greenland has led to the discovery that most of the overturning — in which water not only sinks but returns southward again in the ocean depths — occurs to the east, rather than to the west, of the enormous ice island. If that’s correct, then climate models that suggest the circulation will slow as the climate warms may have to be revised to take this into account.

……….. The new results come from the $ 32 million OSNAP, or “Overturning in the Subpolar North Atlantic,” program, the first attempt to comprehensively measure the circulation in the exceedingly remote regions in question. These icy seas, it is believed, are where cold, salty waters — which are extremely dense — sink below the sea surface into the depths, and then travel back southward again all the way to the Southern Hemisphere.

This “overturning” process is crucial because the sinking in the North Atlantic effectively pulls more warm, salty water northward via a system of currents that includes the Gulf Stream. This heat delivery, in turn, shapes climate throughout much of the region, and especially in Europe.

Better understanding of how the circulation works is key, since some scientists have already proposed that it is slowing down, with major consequences, including ocean warming and sea level rise off the U.S. east coast.

Global temperature maps in recent years have shown a strange area of anomalously cold temperatures in the ocean to the southeast of Greenland, along with very warm temperatures off the coast of New England.

The cold region — which has been dubbed the “cold blob” and also “warming hole” — is strikingly anomalous at a time when the Earth and its oceans are otherwise warming. And the suggestion has been that this represents a decline in the volume of heat being transported northward by the circulation.

Donald Trump confirms US withdrawal from INF nuclear treaty, Guardian, Julian Borger, World affairs editor, Sat 2 Feb 2019 Announcement gives Russia 180 days to destroy violating missiles and launchers to avoid new arms race Donald Trump has confirmed that the US is leaving the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, saying “we will move forward with developing our own military response options” to Russia’s suspect missile.In a written statement, Trump said that the US would be suspending its compliance with the 1987 treaty on Saturday, and would serve formal notice that it would withdraw altogether in six months.

He left the door open to the treaty being salvaged in that 180-day window, but only if Russia destroys all of its violating missiles, launchers and associated equipment. Since 2013, the US has alleged that Russia has developed a new ground-launched cruise missile which violated the INF prohibition of missiles with ranges between 500km and 5,500km.

Russia for several years denied the missile existed but has more recently acknowledged its existence, saying its range does not violate INF limits.

“This is in reality, under international law, Russia’s final chance,” a senior administration official said. “If there is to be an arms race, it is Russia that has undermined the global security architecture.”

In his statement, Trump warned that unless Russia destroyed its missile by August: “We will move forward with developing our own military response options and will work with Nato and our other allies and partners to deny Russia any military advantage from its unlawful conduct.”

Washington’s European allies have been anxious that the death of the INF treaty would lead to a return to the tense days of the 1980s, and an arms race involving short- and medium-range missiles on European soil………

, neither the Trump nor Pompeo gave any indication whether the administration would agree to extend the 2010 New Start treaty, the last remaining arms control agreement constraining the arsenals of the two major nuclear weapons powers.

Both the US and Russia have abided by the New Start limit of 1,550 deployed, strategic nuclear warheads, but the treaty expires in 2021, leaving little time to negotiate a five-year extension.

REVEALED: Staff, budget cuts as Environment Dept becomes “new agency” , In Daily, Tom Richardson@tomrichardson, 1 Feb 19, The state’s Department of Environment and Water will become primarily an “economic development agency” that will be forced to operate with “less staff and smaller budgets” under a major restructure announced to staff yesterday.

Chief executive John Schutz – who replaced former boss Sandy Pitcher, one of four top bureaucrats axed by the incoming Marshall Government last March – yesterday wrote to staff telling them they would be “transitioning to a new agency”……….

“We balance environmental protection with economic development – this means we contribute to our state’s economy by driving sustainable economic development, and unlocking the potential of our natural and heritage resources.” …..

Acting EPA head Andrew Wheeler on Thursday announced the appointment of Brant Ulsh, a health physicist, as one of the EPA’s science advisers and the panel chairman. Ulsh has been a leading critic of the EPA’s decades-old position that exposure to any amount of ionizing radiation is a cancer risk.

In a paper he co-wrote last year, Ulsh and a colleague argued that the position was based on outdated scientific information and forced the “unnecessary burdens of costly clean-ups” on facilities working with radiation.

The EPA under President Donald Trump has targeted a range of environmental protections, in line with Trump’s arguments that overly strict environmental rules have hurt U.S. businesses. Environmental and public health advocates say the rollbacks threaten the health and safety of Americans.

Some environmental groups and scientists have criticized what they say is the administration’s openness to an outlier position on radiation risks.

“Once again the Trump administration is moving to the fringe for its scientific advice, choosing someone who could undercut foundational protections from radiation,” Bemnet Alemayehu, a staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council environmental advocacy group, said in a statement Friday. “We need sound science to dictate health protections, not dangerous theories.”

Ulsh did not immediately respond to an email Friday asking for comment, including whether he intended to use the advisory position to encourage reconsideration of the EPA’s no-tolerance policy on lower doses of radiation exposure.

Last year, Ulsh told The Associated Press that “we spend an enormous effort trying to minimize low doses” at nuclear power plants, for example.

“Instead, let’s spend the resources on minimizing the effect of a really big event,” he said.

U.S. agencies have long maintained there is no threshold of radiation exposure that is risk-free.

The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements reaffirmed that last year after reviewing 29 public health studies on cancer rates among people exposed to low-dose radiation.

The EPA last year proposed a rule that would have instructed regulators to consider “models across the exposure range” when it comes to dangerous substances.

Environmental groups and some scientists expressed concern then that the directive could open the way for an agency retreat from its long-standing no-tolerance rule for ionizing radiation exposure. But the proposed rule did not mention radiation, and EPA officials denied it would have applied to radiation. It said the agency still follows its no-tolerance guidelines.

But the EPA’s proposal last year did specify consideration of a particular scientific model, called the U curve, put forward by Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist and leading proponent of the theory that exposure to radiation and other hazardous substances can actually be healthy at low doses

The EPA’s initial news release on the rule last April quoted Calabrese as praising the proposal, calling it a “major scientific step forward” in assessing the risks of “chemicals and radiation.”

EPA calendars obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show an appointment between Calabrese and EPA chief of staff Ryan Jackson on June 28, 2017, early in the tenure of Scott Pruitt, Wheeler’s predecessor.

Australia is counting on cooking the books to meet its climate targets , The Convesation, Alan Pears, Senior Industry Fellow, RMIT University, January 31, 2019 A new OECD report has warned that Australia risks falling short of its 2030 emissions target unless it implements “a major effort to move to a low-carbon model”.

What’s really going on? Does the government have any data or modelling to serve as a basis for Morrison’s confidence? And if so, why doesn’t it tell us?……..

The government is indeed poised to deliver on the “letter of the law” of its Paris commitment if two things play out. First, if it claims credit from overdelivering on Australia’s 2010 and 2020 commitments. And second, if the “low demand” scenario is the one that eventuates.

To reach our Paris target, the government estimates that we will need to reduce emissions by the equivalent of 697 million tonnes of carbon dioxide before 2030. It also calculates that the overdelivery on previous climate targets already represents a saving of 367Mt, and that low economic demand would save a further 571Mt. That adds up to 938Mt of emissions reductions, outperforming the target by 35% – a canter that would barely work up a sweat.

How would this scenario actually eventuate?

Let’s leave aside the technical question of whether it’s legitimate to count past performance towards future emissions targets, and focus for now on how the low-demand economic scenario might become reality.

The government’s report contains no discussion on the basis of the “low demand” scenario. But history suggests the annual baseline estimates of 2030 emissions have overestimated future emissions, with revisions downwards over time. For example, the 2018 projection for 2030 emissions is 28% lower than the 2012 projection for the same date (see figure 2 here).

In the real world, meanwhile, change is evident. Households and businesses are installing solar panels, not least to guard against high power bills. Businesses are signing power purchase agreements with renewable energy suppliers for much the same reason. State and local governments are pursuing increasingly ambitious clean energy and climate policies. Some energy-intensive industries may be driven offshore by our high gas prices.

New technology such as electric vehicles, ongoing improvement in energy efficiency, and emerging business models that break the power of big energy companies are transforming our economy. Investment in low-emission public transport infrastructure means its share of travel will increase. Farmers are cutting methane emissions by installing biogas production equipment.

Other studies also support the idea that Australia may indeed outperform its baseline emission scenario. ANU researchers recently predicted that “emissions in the electricity sector will decline by more than 26% in 2020-21, and will meet Australia’s entire Paris target of 26% reduction across all sectors of the economy (not just “electricity’s fair share”) in 2024-25”.

The government’s baseline electricity scenario uses the Australian Electricity Market Operator’s “neutral” scenario. But AEMO’s “weak” scenario would see 2030 demand in the National Electricity Market 18% lower than the neutral scenario (see figure 13 here).

Of course, many of these changes are happening in spite of the government’s policy settings, rather than because of them. Still, a win’s a win!

Emissions in context

But is hitting the target in purely technical terms really a win? In truth, it would fall far short of what is really necessary and responsible.

This is partly because of the plan to use prior credit for previous emissions targets to help get us across the line for 2030. This may be allowed under the international rules. But we would be leveraging extremely weak earlier commitments.

For example, Australia’s 2010 Kyoto Protocol target of an 8% increase in emissions was laughably weak in comparison with the developed world average target of a 5% cut. Our 2020 5% reduction target is also well below the aspirations of most other countries. What’s more, several major nations have declared that they will exclude past “overachievements” from their 2020 commitments.

The government has obfuscated the issue further by deliberately conflating our electricity emission reductions target, which will be easily met, with our overall economy-wide target, which presents a much tougher challenge.

Angus Taylor prepares to underwrite coal-fired power By Phillip Coorey, Fin Rev, 01 Feb 2019 Energy Minster Angus Taylor has all but confirmed the Morrison government is prepared to underwrite new coal-fired power stations, at the same time moderate Liberal MPs are urging the government to adopt a policy on climate change.Mr Taylor released a list 66 potential power generation projects seeking taxpayer support after the government called for expressions of interests to provide “reliable” or “fair dinkum” power.

Of the projects submitted, 10 rely on coal…….

The coal proponents are looking for an indemnity against future climate policy or a guarantee from the government it will act as a buyer of last resort.

https://apnews.com/dfd74baf6b2f46c28d7b22138f59c034, By MATTHEW BARAKAT, January 31, 2019 FALLS CHURCH, Va. (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a request to unseal criminal charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange that were mistakenly revealed in another case.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said in a 10-page ruling that free-press advocates seeking to unseal the charges have no proof Assange has actually been charged.

The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press sought to unseal the charges after a federal prosecutor inadvertently typed a reference to “the fact that Assange has been charged” in an unrelated case.

The government has acknowledged it made an error but has not publicly confirmed that charges against Assange have been filed.

After the mistake was made, news outlets including The Associated Press reported that Assange has indeed been charged. But those reports relied on anonymous sources.

The precise charges against Assange are unclear. The Wikileaks founder has been staying in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012 under a grant of asylum and has long expressed fear of a U.S. prosecution. WikiLeaks has served as a vehicle for release of thousands of classified U.S. military and diplomatic cables. In addition, WikiLeaks’ role in releasing emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee in 2016 has also been under scrutiny as special counsel Robert Mueller has investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether the Trump campaign was involved.

Criminal charges typically remain secret and under seal until a defendant has been arrested to prevent a target from fleeing prosecution or destroying evidence. Lawyers for the free-press foundation said that rationale for secrecy no longer exists given the inadvertent disclosure and the fact that Assange has long assumed he has been charged.

Brinkema, though, wrote in her ruling that the Reporters Committee “has not demonstrated with sufficient certainty that Assange has been charged. Unlike in other high-profile cases, the Government has not affirmatively disclosed that charges have been filed. Although the Government acknowledges that it made a mistake … the nature of that mistake is fundamentally unclear.”

Katie Townsend, a lawyer for the Reporters Committee, said no decision has been made on whether to appeal. “The disclosure of the nature of the charges against Assange are a matter of public interest and should be made public,” she said.

By Emilia Terzon 31 Jan 19 The curveball decision of two mining giants to back the Uluru Statement from the Heart is being applauded by some who signed the historic proclamation, but one prominent Aboriginal leader is wary that the move is a cynical grab for Indigenous resources.

Key points:

BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto have announced they support the Uluru Statement from the Heart, almost two years after it was made

Alice Springs town councillor Jacinta Price has questioned whether the companies were looking for a way “to look better in the eyes of Indigenous people”

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he remained opposed to a constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal voice in federal Parliament

Indigenous leaders gathered near Uluru in May 2017 to deliver the joint statement, which calls for a constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal voice in Federal Parliament, and for the laying of foundations for a treaty.

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice The Honourable Yvette D’Ath March 22, 2018

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Yvette D’Ath today announced the appointment of barrister Nathan Jarro as a District Court Judge in Brisbane.

Nathan Jarro will be the state’s first Indigenous judge.

“This is an important appointment for Queensland justice” Mrs D’Ath said.

“Nathan Jarro brings significant litigation experience to the role as a barrister. He initially practised in family and criminal law but has later focused on insurance, administrative, commercial and property law.”

He has held the role of Deputy Public Interest Monitor since 2011.

“He’s also adept at alternative dispute resolution techniques as a long-standing tribunal member for the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal and Mental Health Review Tribunal,” Mrs D’Ath said.

“And he has a strong history of involvement in his community, as a current Board Director for the Queensland Theatre company, chair of the QUT Indigenous Education and Employment Consultative Committee, and former Board Director of the National Indigenous Television LTD (NITV).”

Mr Jarro received his Bachelor of Laws from QUT in 1999 and, after working as a solicitor in private practice, came to the Bar in 2004.

He has been one of Queensland’s most senior practising Indigenous lawyers, identifying as Ghangulu on his father’s side, with connections to Bidjara on his mother’s side.

Survey finds that modern “HELE” coal plants favoured by the Coalition and the coal lobby broke down more often than the ageing black coal fleet. The post Coal power plants in Australia broke down once every three days in 2018 appeared first on RenewEconomy.

FEDERALSubmissions about the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in Kimba or the Flinders Ranges. The Standing Committee on Environment and Energy are accepting submissions to the ‘Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia’ until 16 September 2019. Please write your own submission or use FOE’s online proforma.

Nuclear facilities, including power stations and radioactive waste dumps, are now banned in Queensland.

Nuclear facilities banned under the Act include:

·nuclear reactors (whether used to generate electricity or not);

·uranium conversion and enrichment plants;

·nuclear fuel fabrication plants;

·spent fuel processing plants; and

·facilities used to store or dispose of material associated with the nuclear fuel cycle e.g. radioactive waste material.

Exemptions under the legislation include facilities for the storage or disposal of waste material resulting from research or medical purposes, and the operation of a nuclear-powered vessel.

1 FEDERALSubmissions about the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in Kimba or the Flinders Ranges. The Standing Committee on Environment and Energy are accepting submissions to the ‘Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia’ until 16 September 2019. Please write your own submission or use FOE’s online proforma.

Australia has long rejected nuclear power, and it is banned in Federal and State laws. The nuclear lobby is out to first repeal those laws, and then to get the Australian government to commit to buying probably large numbers of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) . This could mean first importing plutonium and/or enriched uranium, as some reactor models, (thorium ones) require these to get the fission process started. That would, in effect, mean importing nuclear wastes.

There’s an all-too short period for people to send in Submissions to the 4 Parliamentary Inquiries now in progress.